- #1
amp
Eisenhower saw what could happen and tried to motivate us to monitor these guys.
his speech: http://eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm
his speech: http://eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
Could you be more specific? I don't feel like reading the whole thing.amp said:Eisenhower saw what could happen and tried to motivate us to monitor these guys.
his speech: http://eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm
pelastration said:He had on his shoulders the death of thousands of young guys ... but that was the price for real freedom, not calling for freedom to get oil. It was another situation.
News to me I thought it was fought to liberate the people of Europe and Japan from the fascism that Prescott Bush helped to finance.hughes johnson said:?
World War II was ALL ABOUT OIL! Where have you been? OIL is what started the war with the Japanese, bombing the OIL supplies is what finished the war with the Germans. Who are you trying to BS?
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.
schwarzchildradius said:News to me I thought it was fought to liberate the people of Europe and Japan from the fascism that Prescott Bush helped to finance.
motai said:I don't think that WWII was all about oil, but it did play a crucial factor. Hitler's decision to divert the army to the Caucuasus oil fields and Stalingrad and not attacking the crucial transportation bed of Moscow was one such factor, but this is drifting off-topic.
Actually, ... we have also now a guy who wants to control the world. Should I spell his name?hughes johnson said:Hitler's STATED intent was to control the world. The quickest and easiest way to do that in 1940 was to control the oil. No oil, no ability to fight. If he had cut off our oil, we would have been finished.
Thank God you weren't in charge then or now!The liberation of the people of Japan was never a goal of WWII at all, to suggest that it was, is pure stupidity. The goal of the war, once it was under way, was to kill as many Germans and Japanese as possible to win the war.
selfAdjoint said:Umm, Japan was motivated to get a secure supply of oil in southeast Asia. To get there they had to go past the US military strength in the Phillipines. The simultaneous Pearl Harbor/Phillipine attack was aimed at neutralizing that force. Or so many a history book says.
schwarzchildradius said:Thank God you weren't in charge then or now!
hughes johnson said:Good job again, selfAdjoint. The democrats change their history books as they go.
Njorl said:Take your medication Hughes. Had they been able to purchase the oil they wanted, they would certainly not have gone to war with the US.
On the Pacific side, the war was fought for oil(and other resources) and territory. Those are the two of the primary traditional reasons people go to war. Its arguable which was more important. In Europe, oil affected how the war was fought, but didn't really enter into why.motai said:I don't think that WWII was all about oil, but it did play a crucial factor. Hitler's decision to divert the army to the Caucuasus oil fields and Stalingrad and not attacking the crucial transportation bed of Moscow was one such factor, but this is drifting off-topic.
This may be a language issue, but "leadership" and "control" are not the same thing.pelastration said:Actually, ... we have also now a guy who wants to control the world. Should I spell his name?
His buddies: http://www.newamericancentury.org: "We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership"
Njorl said:So Hughes, I see you are now rearranging my quotes...
hughes johnson said:I did rearrange all of your post.
If they were truly bent on territorial expansion into North America, they certainly didn't get very far: bombing pearl harbor, a handfull of Aleutian Islands off the coast of Alaska, and another handfull of pacific islands.Njorl said:So Hughes, I see you are now rearranging my quotes into paragraphs that suit your own demented needs, not just quoting them out of context. You are a fundamentally dishonest person.
You also have no reading comprehension whatsoever. My statements about Japanese oil purchases reflect events that occurred well after the war started. They do not agree with you at all. Now, my explanation is going to be more than 2 sentences Hughes, so I doubt you'll be able to follow it, but give it a try.
The war in the Pacific started in 1931, not 1941. The Japanese had been at war for almost 9 years with no oil shortage at all. They purchased oil from the Dutch wells in Indonesia, and from the United States. During those 9 years they acquired little if any usable oil reserves. If they went to war for oil, they did a really bad job of picking their targets.
So, the Japanese obviously did not go to war for oil.. Did they attack the US for oil?
Even their war with the United States, which was about oil, was not in order to control oil. No one in the Japanese government believed for a moment that they could invade and conquer the United States, and the Indonesian production was inadequate for their needs. So why did they attack Pearl Harbor? It was a grossly flawed perception of American psychology. They believed that they could destroy the American fleet, capture the Pacific bases and present us with a fait accompli. They believed that they could establish themselves as the only power in the Far East, and if we wanted to do business there, it would be with them, on their terms. They believed, once weakened, and with an impending war with Germany, that we would make terms with them quickly. It was never within Japan's capacity or ambition to conquer sufficient oil reserves for their needs.
It is hard to reconcile this Japanese mind-set with today's world. You must remember, the US was a net oil exporter then. We made a lot of good money selling oil to the Japanese. They saw the oil embargo as a US tool for the struggle to dominate the Asian Pacific. If they ended the struggle for dominance, trade would resume, benefitting both sides. They had a similar situation with the Soviet Union in the '30s. They invaded Russia, lost, made terms, and that was that. They did not dream that the US would pursue them to complete capitulation.
hughes johnson said:?
World War II was ALL ABOUT OIL! Where have you been? OIL is what started the war with the Japanese, bombing the OIL supplies is what finished the war with the Germans. Who are you trying to BS?
HallsofIvy said:1. Yes, oil started the war with the Japanese- the Japanese desire to get more oil, not the United States.
2. Saying that it was lack of oil that doomed the Germans is not the same as saying "the war was all about oil". It may well be true that Hitler attacked Poland (starting the war) and then Russia to get at the oil fields in the Caucasus but, once again, "oil" was not the reason the Allies fought.
Njorl said:So anyway Hughes, I'll take it in nice little steps.
The Japanese were at war for 9 years without any attempt to increase their oil reserves. The war was not about oil.
Njorl
HallsofIvy said:1. Yes, oil started the war with the Japanese- the Japanese desire to get more oil, not the United States.
2. Saying that it was lack of oil that doomed the Germans is not the same as saying "the war was all about oil". It may well be true that Hitler attacked Poland (starting the war) and then Russia to get at the oil fields in the Caucasus but, once again, "oil" was not the reason the Allies fought.
hughes johnson said:Good job again, selfAdjoint. The democrats change their history books as they go.
It was not about oil for the US, but for Japan, as a country low on natural resources, it was a major factor. He is correct that oil made the Germans lose (or lose a lot faster).schwarzchildradius said:News to me I thought it was fought to liberate the people of Europe and Japan from the fascism that Prescott Bush helped to finance.
Dwight D. refers to Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States. He warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex in his farewell address in 1961.
The military-industrial complex is a term used to describe the relationship between the military, the government, and the defense industry. It refers to the influence and power that the defense industry has on government policies and decisions.
While some people heeded Eisenhower's warning, many others did not. The military-industrial complex continued to grow and exert influence in government policies and decisions.
The military-industrial complex has had a significant impact on society, including the allocation of resources towards military spending instead of social programs, the perpetuation of war and conflict, and the influence of the defense industry on political decisions.
Yes, the military-industrial complex is still relevant today. The defense industry continues to have a significant influence on government policies and decisions, and military spending remains a contentious issue in many countries.